marcusnewton-blog

[marcusnewton-blog]

When libertarians think they've outplayed leftists when they're actually two steps behind

[marcusnewton-blog]

For those who follow me, I just made a chat room just for intuitive dominants - INTJ, INFJ, ENTP and ENFP. 

Come join!

[marcusnewton-blog]

On Emotional Needs

I think one of my biggest fears - a question which often clouds my mind and causes me great angst during my studies - is that science and capitalism are making the world less beautiful, less ‘livable’ in some sense. I mean this: does our quest for objectivity, capital, innovation, order, efficiency and technology ultimately create a world that, in physiological terms is entirely liveable, but psychologically is an even more terrible existence? Why does it feel as if aesthetic appreciation is either a means to a capitalistic end, or a hedonistic distraction, but never a respectable end in and of itself?

I have no question that science and capitalism have opened up a vast range of opportunities and possibilities, but I dare say that engineers and financial advisors tend not to do so well when it comes to producing something aesthetically pleasing, especially when given economic restraints. Perhaps I’m being irrational, but I know there are people out there who are massively talented at the art they produce and wish they could paint the entire world! And psychologists and empaths who understand the human condition, and wish they could transform every workplace to help each and every one of us find meaning in what we do. I implore you all to understand the latest advances in science and technology, so you can take the reins and do what you do best.

Personally, once I finish this physics course I’m going straight into design. I know there will be many skills in my toolbox that will be neglected, but I can’t see myself discovering new things or creating new technology without being sure that it will actually make the world more beautiful. For example, the TV was an incredible innovation, but has the TV really made our lives that much more fulfilling? How does that compare to a deep discussion with a couple of close friends while on a camping trip?

There is definitely a massive gap between technology and our emotional wellbeing that needs to be addressed (wellbeing that tends to be solved socially, more than anything), and so I do not wish to fuel this discord any further. More technological innovation is becoming less effective at improving quality of life, and we need to work smarter with the technology we’ve got. My dystopia is one where we have simply avoided taking a moment to understand the subjective, emotional experience, and lacked the principles to cater to these deep, existential needs for the sake of marginal profit.

[marcusnewton-blog]

Humans are just overclocked apes in a universe that doesn't care.

/u/maxentius22

[marcusnewton-blog]

Toronto :)

[marcusnewton-blog]

I have a deeply hidden and inarticulate desire for something beyond the daily life.

Virginia Woolf (via antimoderate)

[marcusnewton-blog]

[marcusnewton-blog]

MBTI Dress Styles

Alpha Quadra (ENTP, INTP, ESFJ, ISFJ): Mostly oblivious or doesn’t care

Beta Quadra (ENFJ, INFJ, ESTP, ISTP): Dresses to fit in with a kind of culture

Gamma Quadra (ESFP, ISFP, ENTJ, INTJ): Most refined. Dresses to awe

Delta Quadra (ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP): Expressionistic. Conveys inner values and emotions

[marcusnewton-blog]

On Personal Identity

I suppose this has become a kind of public journal for me, so I’ll attempt to externally process some of my thoughts while hopefully still making some sense.

I recently watched this The School of Life video above (which I encourage you to watch before reading on – only 7 minutes!) where Alain de Botton calmly explores the concept of personal identity. I found de Botton’s arguments to be fairly compelling: identity – the thing which makes you you and me me - has little to do with our outward human vessel, nor our technical capacities, nor stored memories, but largely to do with our character – our values, inclinations, temperaments and ideas.

But de Botton makes this really profound when he applies it to human mortality. Hypothetically, if we define you as your character and me as my character, yet our ‘character’ (values, inclinations, temperaments, ideas) can live on, i.e. in the people who knew us, in a book, in a play, in our scientific discoveries, in the assets our children inherit – in ANY kind of legacy – do we die? If the real you is not simply your bodily vessel, but some intangible, essential quality, can we even talk about ‘your death’ in any meaningful way? 

Even if we suppose that this ‘character’, as materialists would agree, is made of some concoction of physical substances, we must remember that the atoms and molecules in our bodies are completely replaced multiple times over our lifetime. Yet these ‘temperaments’ seem to transcend this transition, and remain there. Someone can still associate the you when you were a baby to the you when you are 80 years old. However different we appear at these two ages one cannot deny there is something essential that pervades this entire spectrum from birth until death. 

How can you still be you when every atom in your body is completely different to a previous time? I believe the first part of this answer, which de Botton touched on, is that our character cannot entirely exist internally, but also externally. Psychologists such as Carl Jung have actually explored this concept of external character in terms of personality before, that cognition is not entirely a introverted process, but every person contains extroverted functions too. An extroverted thinker, for example, directly projects their thoughts, opinions and ideas into the external world in order to solve logical problems – whether that is using a pen on a whiteboard or talking out a problem with another person. Similarly, an extroverted feeler directly projects their loves and ethical values into the external world.

So, hopefully we’ve established that character must both exist inside and outside of our bodily vessel, since these terms that are essential to our definition of character – i.e. values, inclinations, temperaments, ideas – are required to be extroverted for them to develop at all. Now, the second part of our answer is that this ‘character’ actually lies in the interaction of physical particles, rather than the particles themselves. Indeed, we can take this to the extreme, that our character is actually a consequence of the interactions of all particles in the entire Universe. Why all of them? Because we know from quantum mechanics that there is no limit to the distance two particles can interact – a single electron actually encompasses the entire Universe as a wave until it collapses into a tiny particle of energy as it interacts with another physical process, such as a wave of light. This is actually proven by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement – something you should look up if you feel like having your mind blown a second time.

Now if you’ve followed me this far, I want to outline some other related philosophies, such as the purpose of life and whatnot. This is probably the dodgiest part of my post because I can feel an insight emerging but it isn’t fully developed: Some common modern understandings of life stem almost exclusively from Charles Darwin, the great naturalist who established an entirely new paradigm on how we should view the organic world. We’ve seen concepts such as the ‘will to life’ – that all species have an incessant drive to reproduce, pass on their genes and raise their offspring in a world that gives them a better chance at surviving and reproducing further. Friedrich Nietzsche put forward the concept of the ‘will to power’ – continually garnering the ability to influence and change the environment to perpetuate a further increase in power. The ‘will to meaning’ has even been put forward by Søren Kierkegaard – our purpose is to constantly search for meaning. Perhaps this last example is true for humans, but remains rather hazy for other forms of life.

Taking a different, scientific approach, Erwin Schrödinger took the thermodynamic concept of entropy and applied it to organic life, exploring the bizarre concept of ‘negative entropy’. In this view, life seems to act fundamentally different to other things, it places itself between hot and cold and forces this transition to take as long as possible. Where the heat from a fire would usually just dissipate into the atmosphere, life is determined to make that heat help itself grow, and thus humanity uses every scrap of coal we can get to power the machines to help us do just that. Radiation from the Sun also would simply hit the Earth and radiate back out, but we have plants that cover the planet and use photosynthesis to capture this energy that would otherwise dissipate back out into space. But I want to delve deeper into this idea. We are complex, and I don’t believe humanity is focused entirely on turning this free energy into more flesh and blood. I think there is a more overarching reason for why we want to slow this thermodynamic process down, and I believe it has to do with information.

I call it the will to infuse, the will to imbue – or simply, the will to affect – as much energy in the Universe with our essence, whether it is with our character, our values, our genes, or anything derivative of these. The reason why life slows down this transition – from hot to cold – is to encode as much thermodynamic information as possible with a ‘piece’ of itself. Life’s greatest goal isn’t simply to ‘be the biggest’ or ‘absorb the most energy and concentrate it in one spot’, but to ensure that our name is on every bit of energy that passes through us on its journey from high potential to low potential.

[marcusnewton-blog]

“We have measured the value of the world according to categories of reason that refer to a purely fictitious world. The faith in those categories is the cause of nihilism.”

—F. Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §12B (edited excerpt).

[marcusnewton-blog]

Not long after a freakout, this has eased my mind. I hope the world will continue to approach this superpower with the seriousness it deserves. We get to play a god now, we ought to act as wisely as one.

[marcusnewton-blog]

This shit is genuinely freaking me out. Not in any irrational way, but the obvious devastating ethical consequences and the damn politics that will surround this issue. I don’t want to be anywhere near this.

[marcusnewton-blog]

Just a little debate of mine on anarcho-primitivism for anyone interested.

[marcusnewton-blog]

On the Modern Neoliberal Cooptation of Romanticism

I’ve recently discovered new words to describe the vague uneasiness I’ve had around the recent ‘innovation’ movement in Australia. ‘Cooptation’ refers to the ability of neoliberalism to assimilate novel objects and ideas into capitalism in order to further perpetuate it. With the negative effects of capitalism become more and more apparent, it seems to me that this a critical element which must be addressed. As a romantic, for the Arts, Sciences and Eastern/Western Philosophy to be left alone is critically important to me. I believe these are avenues which must be appreciated as ends, but if they must be treated as a means (with a kind of utilitarian value), they should be for the direct and long-lasting emotional benefit of human individuals. I do not believe we should be reproducing wildly unless we can promise to bring humans into a beautiful and authentic world and that they shall have access to explore it without being stressed or forced into exploitation. The human race is exploiting itself to collectively fulfil a biological impulse which does not grow nor improve the individual human psyche, it simply encourages us to spread like a disease across this planet, eventually backfiring when Nature’s had enough of us. Does neoliberalism even have the capacity to prevent such a demise without further exploiting our cultural resources? Or is it time for the Western world to develop a new political philosophy which celebrates a humble and stripped-back lifestyle? Has capitalism done enough that we can now sit back, slow down and be human again? Or do we just work ourselves to death?

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” ― R. Buckminster Fuller

[marcusnewton-blog]

[marcusnewton-blog]

A bird doesn't sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song.

Maya Angelou

(via the-red-lotus-blog)

It sings because it's claiming it's territory and wants a bird lady to mate with.

[marcusnewton-blog]

Reddit Rambling - On Dissatisfaction

Of course it’s ok to be average. We all are. I think what OP is asking is “Why struggle? Can’t I just let myself off the hook?” And you can, but you should do so selectively. Not because you have some responsibility to produce, but because without struggle, life loses meaning. Amazingly, we still find ways to find meaning and struggle in our lives despite the fact that our every need is met. The trick is to make sure you’re struggling toward the right things, for the right reasons. For that you’re better off listening to yourself and people who love you, instead of your peers or an ad campaign.

This comment here. Meaning in life comes from pushing the boundaries – challenging ourselves, finding out what’s beyond the horizon, mastering something better than everyone else.

This issue here of dissatisfaction stems from uncreativity, where people of new generations don’t think outside the box of ‘earn the most money’ or 'be the most popular’. I think we must invent more arbitrary challenges because it enables more people to feel like they’ve achieved something unique and significant.